The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld summary judgment for a state agency that denied a social worker a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement, because the agency proved that accommodating him would have caused undue hardship. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and binding statewide. The case turned on evidence: the employer backed its hardship claim with expert proof, and the employee offered none in response.
What happened
The employee was a social worker for the Department of Children and Families. His job involved regular face-to-face contact with children, parents, coworkers and court staff, including home visits, transporting children to appointments, supervised visits, court hearings, and one day a week as the unit’s emergency duty worker. In 2021, an executive order required executive department employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with a process for limited religious exemptions where a reasonable accommodation could be reached. He asked for an exemption and proposed working mostly remotely, wearing a mask, and testing weekly. The agency denied the request as an undue hardship, he resigned rather than be vaccinated or be fired, and after exhausting administrative remedies he sued for religious discrimination under G.L. c. 151B.
What the court decided
In Jangl v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, No. 25-P-168 (Mass. App. Ct. October 15, 2026), the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment for the employer.
The court started with the statute. Under G.L. c. 151B, § 4 (1A), an employer may not make a person violate or give up a required religious practice as a condition of keeping a job, and must reasonably accommodate religious needs unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The employer has the burden of proving undue hardship. The statute lists examples, including where the health or safety of the public would be unduly compromised and where the employee’s presence is needed to alleviate an emergency. The Supreme Judicial Court has described that list as nonexhaustive. Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., 452 Mass. 674 (2008).
Once the employee shows a conflict between a job requirement and a required religious practice, the burden shifts to the employer to prove undue hardship, and the court looks at the nature and operations of the employer’s business. New York & Mass. Motor Serv., Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 401 Mass. 566 (1988). That case also recognized that hardship can be shown where an accommodation would push staffing below the minimum needed to operate.
The trial judge accepted that the employee’s religious beliefs were sincere. The question was hardship. The appeals panel pointed to the close, in-person nature of the job, contact with vulnerable children, the emergency duty role, and the agency’s significant staffing shortages at the time. An outbreak among staff and families could have threatened public health and the agency’s ability to provide services. The agency supported this with affidavits from a state infectious disease physician, agency officials, and the local area office director.
The employee did not dispute his job duties. His main argument was that the vaccine does not really prevent infection or spread, so there was no hardship. But he offered no expert evidence or other proof to back that up. On summary judgment, a party who does not answer a supported motion with specific facts showing a genuine dispute cannot avoid judgment. Community Nat’l Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550 (1976). The court contrasted Jeune v. UMass Memorial Health Care Sys., 106 Mass. App. Ct. 95 (2025), where a hospital lost summary judgment because it offered no expert evidence on the risks of the requested accommodations.
The court also upheld the use of the employer’s expert. The doctor was qualified, complaints about his studies went to weight, and any challenge to his methods was waived because the employee never asked for a reliability hearing.
What this means for you
Massachusetts law still requires employers to accommodate religious practice. This case shows how undue hardship gets proved, and how a claim can be lost on the record.
The employer won because it built a detailed record: the actual job duties, the risks to vulnerable people, the staffing situation, and expert testimony. The employee lost because he argued the science without evidence. Saying a fact is “disputed” is not enough at summary judgment. You need affidavits, documents or expert opinion.
Jeune shows the other side. When an employer simply asserts hardship without proof, or offers accommodations to others but not to you, a religious accommodation claim can go to trial.
What to do now
- Put your accommodation request in writing. Describe the religious practice and the specific changes you are asking for.
- Write down exactly what your job requires day to day, and whether others in similar roles received accommodations.
- Keep every response from your employer, including any reason it gives for saying no.
- Watch the deadline for filing a charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. It is short, and waiting can end your claim.
- If you plan to challenge an employer’s expert, talk to a lawyer early about gathering your own evidence and asking for a hearing on reliability.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Deadlines for discrimination and employment claims can be short.
